Continuation Part 16: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

Status
Not open for further replies.
Antony said:
.
Hi Planigale

That is one I have puzzled over also.

Perhaps Rudy did intend to include it in his story, by saying for example, that he heard a breaking noise over the sound of his IPod while sitting on the toilet, but then paid no more attention to it.

Rudy however had the advantage of seeing the police commit to a hypothesis before his involvement was even known, so when he realized that Amanda and Raffaele were being accused of staging his break-in, he may have decided to alter the story accordingly.

Cody
.

That would be ridiculous in the context of the "staged" break-in, because it implies that the staging occurred before the murder! It would make sense in the context of Rudy's original claim that some other guy broke in and killed Meredith while he was taking a dump.
.
Yes, I think Rudy's early story, the one he told his friend during the Skype call, was designed to imply that a stranger broke in through the window and murdered Meredith while he was innocently sitting on the toilet listening to his IPOD. It was the best he could do at the time.

But, by the time he was identified and caught, the prosecuting team were in love with and wedded to the idea that Raffaele and Amanda were involved and had staged a break-in to cover up their involvement. So, with the help of his lawyer, Rudy was subtly trying to imply that yes that could be true, but that he was not involved because they had entered through the front door and murdered Meredith while he was innocently sitting on the toilet listening to his IPOD.

Like RWVBWL I will be interested to read Rudy's first interview with Mignini.

Cody
.
 
I think the broken window was the big problem for Rudy when he first told his story, because he had no explanation for it. If he included it in his story, it would have messed up everything. What, the phantom intruder came in through the window?? Too weird a story, even for this situation. So I think he left it out, planning to say, later, that since he and Meredith were not in Filomena's room, he has no idea what went on in there. But when the cops started talking about a staged break in, he added to his story that the window was not broken when he was there, to try to pin things on AK and RS,

Your explanation is a good hypothesis.

Filomena's door was closed or mostly closed when Amanda first came to the cottage and still closed when Amanda and Raffaele came later to the cottage. Why couldn't Rudy say the door was closed and I didn't see anything?

Another possibility in saying he was in the room and looked out the window might be to account for any evidence which might turn up that showed he was in the room? It would be nice to have a timeline of when Rudy gave his various stories and what was going on during the hearings and in the news.
 
I think the broken window was the big problem for Rudy when he first told his story, because he had no explanation for it. If he included it in his story, it would have messed up everything. What, the phantom intruder came in through the window?? Too weird a story, even for this situation. So I think he left it out, planning to say, later, that since he and Meredith were not in Filomena's room, he has no idea what went on in there. But when the cops started talking about a staged break in, he added to his story that the window was not broken when he was there, to try to pin things on AK and RS,
.
Yes, that makes sense. In fact, feigning no knowledge of a broken window gave Rudy the most plausible innocent explanation. He could stick to his date with Meredith and a stranger murdered her when he went to the bathroom story.

When asked how to explain the broken window, he could argue that the stranger must have broken into the cottage before he and Meredith arrived. Rudy could argue that their arrival must have surprised the stranger and that the stranger must have then hidden in one of the rooms. When Rudy went to the bathroom, Meredith either discovered the stranger, or the stranger confronted Meredith.

Cody
.
 
red (Kastle Meyer) versus blue (luminol)

At location 513 van der Leek says that luminol tests suggest that a great deal of blood was disposed of in the bathroom and shows a link to the Daily Mail bathroom photo, side by side with a photo of what the smaller bathroom actually looked like. This is a very puzzling passage, for a number of reasons. One is that the red color may be the result of a Kastle-Meyer test, but I am unaware of evidence that luminol was applied in the bathroom. Two is that the red bathroom photo in the link was not part of the case file.
 
I think the broken window was the big problem for Rudy when he first told his story, because he had no explanation for it. If he included it in his story, it would have messed up everything. What, the phantom intruder came in through the window?? Too weird a story, even for this situation. So I think he left it out, planning to say, later, that since he and Meredith were not in Filomena's room, he has no idea what went on in there. But when the cops started talking about a staged break in, he added to his story that the window was not broken when he was there, to try to pin things on AK and RS,

.
Yes, that makes sense. In fact, feigning no knowledge of a broken window gave Rudy the most plausible innocent explanation. He could stick to his date with Meredith and a stranger murdered her when he went to the bathroom story.

When asked how to explain the broken window, he could argue that the stranger must have broken into the cottage before he and Meredith arrived. Rudy could argue that their arrival must have surprised the stranger and that the stranger must have then hidden in one of the rooms. When Rudy went to the bathroom, Meredith either discovered the stranger, or the stranger confronted Meredith.

Cody
.

I know that there are not suppose to be any Plea Deals in Italy but it is a good question if he did get some sort of plea deal for implicating them.
 
At location 513 van der Leek says that luminol tests suggest that a great deal of blood was disposed of in the bathroom and shows a link to the Daily Mail bathroom photo, side by side with a photo of what the smaller bathroom actually looked like. This is a very puzzling passage, for a number of reasons. One is that the red color may be the result of a Kastle-Meyer test, but I am unaware of evidence that luminol was applied in the bathroom. Two is that the red bathroom photo in the link was not part of the case file.


Chris, it seems like you are doing something of significant value here. I hope it is your intent that it will lead to an article.

I do have somewhat mixed feelings on this though. The book is self published and unlikely to have much distribution outside the rabidly pro guilt. What, exactly is the best approach to something like this? Should the article be about the wider topic of the nature of some of the remaining pro guilt efforts? I just don't know about this at all. Whatever you do on this I know I will enjoy reading it. If you do publish it as a separate article would Amazon allow a review of the book to link to it?

ETA: You said "may be" the result of a Kastle-Meyer test. Is there doubt on that topic? Was there never an official statement related to the photo? Perhaps not because it seems to have been a privately taken photo of the crime scene. I just read the Wikipedia article on it (which of course makes me an expert). It only talks about the use of the test in small samples. What exactly is the theory of the pink stains in the bathroom? Is the general belief that most of the pink stains occurred more than 30 seconds after the application of the phenolphthalein and after 30 seconds the phenolphthalein begins to turn pink even without the presence of blood or other substance that it reacts with?

ETA2: This is probably a question long ago discussed and answered but why was phenolphthalein used in the bathroom and luminol other places?

ETA3: The most interesting questions on this topic are ones that were discussed in this thread when I was participating a few years ago. Who took the pictures? Was it legal to do so if they were associated with law enforcement? Were the pictures intentionally released by somebody deliberately attempting to create a false impression about what they represented? All of these questions were well and long discussed and I think the answer is still about the same: Nobody outside of a very small group of people knows the answers and only speculation based on very limited information is possible. If that is still true, my sense of it is that further discussion about this sub topic would not lead to any further insight.
 
Last edited:
I know that there are not suppose to be any Plea Deals in Italy but it is a good question if he did get some sort of plea deal for implicating them.

I think there can be unofficial plea deals, and am sure they happen all the time. Not so much like what happens in the US, which would be "if you agree to testify against X, we will let you plead guilty to Y reduced charge. It is more of a "we have you dead to rights, and if you want us to go easy on you for X, Y, Z extra charges we could add, cooperate with us.". It could also just be as simple as Rudy deciding to play ball as much as possible, given he had nothing to lose and everything to gain. No deal was really needed.
 
I know that there are not suppose to be any Plea Deals in Italy but it is a good question if he did get some sort of plea deal for implicating them.

1. I don't believe there are no plea deals in Italy. They can say it up the kazoo, and I still won't believe it. For whatever reason, Italy might choose to not officially acknowledge what are really plea deals but it seem extremely likely to me that they exist.

2. There was a lot of discussion on this issue when Machiavelli was participating. It was his claim that Mignini's hands were tied and the deal that Guede got was typical of what somebody would have gotten that committed his crimes. I doubted it then and I doubt it now.

3. I think this falls into the category of things where further discussion will not lead to new insights. It looks like the probable situation is that Mignini got Guede to implicate Knox and Sollecito for reasons that remain unknowable. It is even unknowable that he did that. Did Mignini know that AK/RS were innocent? If so when did he know it? If not was Mignini driven by confirmation bias, a desire to be famous for prosecuting a salacious world famous murder case, some form of sexual/horror fantasy or maybe some other completely unknown reason. Besides Mignini and maybe Guede's lawyer there aren't a lot of people associated with the case who would know the answers and even if they did they might not want to discuss the issue publicly.
 
Last edited:
some alternative hypotheses

ETA: You said "may be" the result of a Kastle-Meyer test. Is there doubt on that topic? Was there never an official statement related to the photo? Perhaps not because it seems to have been a privately taken photo of the crime scene. I just read the Wikipedia article on it (which of course makes me an expert). It only talks about the use of the test in small samples. What exactly is the theory of the pink stains in the bathroom? Is the general belief that most of the pink stains occurred more than 30 seconds after the application of the phenolphthalein and after 30 seconds the phenolphthalein begins to turn pink even without the presence of blood or other substance that it reacts with?

ETA2: This is probably a question long ago discussed and answered but why was phenolphthalein used in the bathroom and luminol other places?

ETA3: The most interesting questions on this topic are ones that were discussed in this thread when I was participating a few years ago. Who took the pictures? Was it legal to do so if they were associated with law enforcement? Were the pictures intentionally released by somebody deliberately attempting to create a false impression about what they represented? All of these questions were well and long discussed and I think the answer is still about the same: Nobody outside of a very small group of people knows the answers and only speculation based on very limited information is possible. If that is still true, my sense of it is that further discussion about this sub topic would not lead to any further insight.
davefoc,

Dan O. had the best handle on the question of who took the photo. My understanding is that it was probably a cop who was taking it for his own reasons. The color is roughly what one might expect in a Kastle-Meyer test, although in a laboratory setting a solution of phenolphthalein is more pink than red. The only other reaction that might produce a similar color has to do with obtaining latent fingerprints. Ninhydrin, which is used for porous surfaces, would probably produce a more purple color, but it is difficult to say. Superglue fuming is used for nonporous surfaces, but I don't know which dyes are most commonly used in this technique. One fluorescent dye appears red under an alternate light source. I don't think that there is enough data for a conclusive answer.
 
I have this bit from Massei. It tells us about when and about what. I'm sure there is more testimony on the subject but not all of the files have been OCR'd yet.

Domenico Profazio Hyacinth, then leader of the Flying Squad in Perugia, after hearing of 27.2.2009 (Massei page 94)
"I did not enter the small bathroom at via della Pergola at all on November 4, and I only saw it on the 6th when it was totally pink because an appropriate substance had been used to enhance the forensic traces".​

There is a very similar photo taken by the official photographer in the police case file. We can tell from the published photo that it was taken with a smaller camera like several that are seen in the hands of investigators on December 18. One segment of the video even shows an investigator raising his pocket camera facing into the small bathroom as if to take a picture. I do not see the flash in that sequence so I cannot say for certain that a photo was taken at that time. Nore can I say that other photos were not also taken.
 
Last edited:
I have this bit from Massei. It tells us about when and about what. I'm sure there is more testimony on the subject but not all of the files have been OCR'd yet.

Domenico Profazio Hyacinth, then leader of the Flying Squad in Perugia, after hearing of 27.2.2009 (Massei page 94)
"I did not enter the small bathroom at via della Pergola at all on November 4, and I only saw it on the 6th when it was totally pink because an appropriate substance had been used to enhance the forensic traces".​

There is a very similar photo taken by the official photographer in the police case file. We can tell from the published photo that it was taken with a smaller camera like several that are seen in the hands of investigators on December 18. One segment of the video even shows an investigator raising his pocket camera facing into the small bathroom as if to take a picture. I do not see the flash in that sequence so I cannot say for certain that a photo was taken at that time. Nore can I say that other photos were not also taken.

Are there any significant or noteworthy differences between the pink/red bathroom photo image and the pink/red bathroom photo image that was published in newspapers? For example, are the sight angles or views in the photos different?

I will suggest that differences in color (whether an image appears more pink or more red) may be an image processing artifact or choice made through a decision on the adjustment of processing parameters such as degree of color saturation.
 
Are there any significant or noteworthy differences between the pink/red bathroom photo image and the pink/red bathroom photo image that was published in newspapers? For example, are the sight angles or views in the photos different?

I will suggest that differences in color (whether an image appears more pink or more red) may be an image processing artifact or choice made through a decision on the adjustment of processing parameters such as degree of color saturation.


The published photo was taken at a slightly different angle and lower height. Look at the pipes under the sink for a comparison. There is also a difference in the shadow showing that the flash was closer to the camera. This is easily seen in the edge of the toilet bowls (or is it the bidet).

picture.php
picture.php


picture.php
 
Last edited:
davefoc,

Dan O. had the best handle on the question of who took the photo. My understanding is that it was probably a cop who was taking it for his own reasons. The color is roughly what one might expect in a Kastle-Meyer test, although in a laboratory setting a solution of phenolphthalein is more pink than red. The only other reaction that might produce a similar color has to do with obtaining latent fingerprints. Ninhydrin, which is used for porous surfaces, would probably produce a more purple color, but it is difficult to say. Superglue fuming is used for nonporous surfaces, but I don't know which dyes are most commonly used in this technique. One fluorescent dye appears red under an alternate light source. I don't think that there is enough data for a conclusive answer.

The key point is, though, that the color in the bathroom is due to the application of a chemical used for forensic detection, and is not blood. The pink/red/purple color of a published photo can of course be an artifact or adjustment of the color processing and is easily adjustable with software.

I suggest that the forensic police were looking for trace blood stains and trace finger or hand prints made in blood, since those would tend to be probative over any finger or hand print detectable by ninhydrin. That would suggest a Kastle-Meyer test. (There would possibly be too many non-probative prints for ninhydrin to be useful.) But one would hope that the police actually documented what they actually did, even if such documentation is not yet available to the public.
 
I would say that Guede cannot admit to the break-in because that would completely undermine his claim that he was invited in by Ms. Kercher and his claim that he had consensual sexual contact with Ms. Kercher. If he admitted to the break in, nobody would have ever believed those claims. (Not that very many people do anyway)

Guede only 'admitted' things he had to in order to try to explain away the forensic evidence that he knew or reasonably expected would be found, and he did so in order to try to make his forensic presence appear innocent in nature. That is, he made up a story to explain away his presence in order to avoid being held responsible for his crimes, but he couldn't admit to the break in because that would demolish his 'innocent' presence tall tales.


Rudy Guede's story seemingly convinced Grinder that he could have had a date with Meredith.
And the Guilt-ards believe "Poor Rudy"'s story too.
:confused:

Myself,
I still wonder why Rudy makes mention of the noise downstairs below.
Odd, that...


Oh ya, before I forget,
MichaelB at IIP posted a coupla links that I found interesting,
so I gotta remind Grinder that yes,
Rudy spells it with a y, not an i!
picture.php


Heck, it seems that the Italian Courts are finally getting it right:
Guede Supreme Court report for stolen goods conviction 5-Dec-2014.
http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/wp-co...cassazione-report-stolen-goods-5-Dec-2014.pdf
maybe Grinder will too some day...

Just kiddin'+having a laugh, haha. :D
RW
 
At location 513 van der Leek says that luminol tests suggest that a great deal of blood was disposed of in the bathroom and shows a link to the Daily Mail bathroom photo, side by side with a photo of what the smaller bathroom actually looked like. This is a very puzzling passage, for a number of reasons. One is that the red color may be the result of a Kastle-Meyer test, but I am unaware of evidence that luminol was applied in the bathroom. Two is that the red bathroom photo in the link was not part of the case file.


Hi Prof. Halkides,
please correct me if I am wrong,
but I find it hard to believe that some writer is apparently still suggesting
that Amanda Knox came home and took a shower in a bathroom that looked like this:



When in actuality it looked like this:
 
Rudy Guede's story seemingly convinced Grinder that he could have had a date with Meredith.
And the Guilt-ards believe "Poor Rudy"'s story too.
:confused:

Myself,
I still wonder why Rudy makes mention of the noise downstairs below.
Odd, that...


Oh ya, before I forget,
MichaelB at IIP posted a coupla links that I found interesting,
so I gotta remind Grinder that yes,
Rudy spells it with a y, not an i!
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=1240&pictureid=9878[/qimg]

Heck, it seems that the Italian Courts are finally getting it right:
Guede Supreme Court report for stolen goods conviction 5-Dec-2014.
http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/wp-co...cassazione-report-stolen-goods-5-Dec-2014.pdf
maybe Grinder will too some day...

Just kiddin'+having a laugh, haha. :D
RW

Rudy claims the ladies gold watch was given to him by a friend but refused to identify the friend, if I am reading this correctly.
 
.
Hi Doug

It should still be very easy to verify with certainty which day the call was made.

If it was actually Oct 31 then the Nov 1 memories must be the result of bad recollections, confusion, and incompetence, by people other than Raffaele and Amanda. Exactly the kind of thing that pro guilters argue innocent people never do.

If it was actually Nov 01, then the caller's claims and his reasons for making those claims , plus the police reasons for accepting the claims, should be questioned, IMO.

Cody
.


Hi Codyjuneau,
After reading your postings,
I went and found MichaelB's post on this:
Anyways on to some new info.

Deposition of Alessando Capasso: He made a statement together with Stefanai Tommasi. He states that he is was responsible for the prank call. He had a €100 bonus for his cell phone credit and so he would make prank calls. On 31-Oct-2007 he was in a Pizzeria named Ghiottone with his friends to celebrate Halloween and they called various numbers including 075/451595 from his mobile (which was shown to the Police) at 21:48. He remembers saying "be careful because you've got a bomb in your toilet".

The odd thing is the date in the deposition for the prank call is Oct 31 even though Lana says she received it on Nov 1 and the cops turned up. Deposition states he showed his phones call log to the cops when he made his statement. So there's a discrepancy.

http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/wp-con...on-Capasso.pdf

Thanks to Teddy IIP for helping read all of these.


The dude crank called Elisabetta Lana's flat at 9:48 pm on Halloween.
That's Oct. 31st, as you noted, and so does the dudes deposition!

What gives?!?
Re-reading Murder in Italy, pages 51-54,
the cops came out to Elisabetta's place after she called them
after receiving a menacing call around 10:00pm, on Nov. 1st.

The Postal Police were there when her son Alessandro got home after his Mom called him too,
at 10:30pm, she was probably a little freaked out.
They did a sweep of the house and garden, in the dark,
and found no bombs.

The next morning,
it was Alessandro who found the 1st of Meredith Kercher's cell phones.
He did so as he chatted with his girlfriend,
who had called as he had breakfast with his Mom.

I'll quote a passage from Murder in Italy:
Felling the need for a little privacy, Alessandro went outside. He strolled around the half-acre garden, enjoying the crisp morning air and talking on the phone. Around 9:00am an object caught his eye. He stopped to look. He saw a light colored Motorola, flipped over, its keyboard resting on the ground. It was in the middle of the lawn, less than 60 feet from the wooded Via Andrea de Perugia , which wound uphill from the cottage.

Alessandro scooped up the phone, went into the house and showed it to his mother, who thought one of the officers might have lost it during the previous night's search. Again, she called the Postal Police. They asked her to bring the phone to their office. So Elisabetta dropped it into a plastic bag and took the phone to the station. She signed a statement at 11:31am, left matters in the hands of the cops, and headed for a nearby market to pick up groceries.

Neither she nor anyone in her family ever heard that phone ring.

At 11:50am, the Postal Police called Elisabetta from the station. "Do you know a Filomena?" they asked, because police had removed a Vodaphone SIM card from the phone and traced it back to its buyer, Filomena Romanelli, on Via della Pergola. Filomena, it turned out later, had loaned an extra phone of hers to Meredith to make local calls.



Codyjuneau,
you always been 1 to question the Bomb Threat.
it seems indeed there is something fishy about the threat and the Postal Police story,
as the dates and times do not jive.

Did the cops come out on Halloween to investigate the Bomb Threat?
Or did they come out on the night of Nov. 1st to check it out?
Weird...
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom